Legal Opinion
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Jonas
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 20, 2002No. Nos. 01-35280, 01-35490; D.C. Nos. CV-00-06059-MRH, CV-00-06059-HOPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Mutual of Enumclaw (Mutual) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and award of attorney’s fees in favor of Richard Jonas. We reverse. Mutual owed neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. The suit brought against Jonas1 was not for unfair competition, within the meaning of the policy; moreover, it fell within a policy exclusion.
I. Duty to Defend
A. Unfair Competition
The policy definition of “advertising injury” includes the term “unfair competition.” Mutual argues for a narrow definition of the term, based on the common law.2 Jonas offers a broader…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ledford v. GutoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Kamin v. KUHNAUOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Volt Services Group v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. LundOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Western Alliance Corp. v. Western Reliance Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pinnacle Architecture, Inc. v. Hiscox, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2021